Good evening and welcome to Sacramento County Planning Commission for Monday, September 8th, 2025, convening at 5 30 p.m.

Um, will the clerk call the roll?

Good evening.

Um, members Borja here.

Members Conklin.

Here.

Corona Savignano?

Here.

Devlin.

Here.

And Virga?

Here.

And with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Will you please uh rise and join me in a pledge of allegiance?

Vice Chair, would you lead us?

Thank you.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

Thank you very much.

Clerk, are there any announcements?

Yes.

The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language.

The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant.

Seating may be limited on an first come, first serve basis.

To make it in public person public comment, please complete a and submit a speaker request form to the clerk.

Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment.

Members of the public may send a written comment, which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record.

Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off agenda item number to be sent as follow.

Email a comment to board clerk at SACCounty.gov and mail a comment to 700 H Street Suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you very much, Clerk.

And that brings us to uh number one on our non-contested portion of our agenda.

Clerk will you please call that agenda item out?

Item number one is PLMP 2025-00002.

This is a use permit in a design review.

It is located at 6700 Fair Oaks Boulevard at the northeast corner of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Stanley Avenue in the Carmichael community.

And the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you very much.

Is there a desire for staff presentation or are we looking to waive that?

No, no, no.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

It's entirely up to you if you'd like to present.

Or address.

Sure.

If you'd like, you're you're more than welcome to to speak or are you good?

Oh, okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um, is there any uh questions or deliver uh uh that the members of the commission would like to make or comments?

No, all right, and don't see any public comments.

Are we looking for a motion?

And we have not received any public comment cards either.

Okay, thank you.

I move staff recommendation.

All right, we got a motion, second.

We have a second clerk, will you please call the roll?

And that vote passes with all members voting yes.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, that brings us to the second agenda item on our contested portion of our agenda.

Would you please call?

Item number two is PLMP 2024-0080087, and that is a use permit, special development permit, and a design review.

The property is located at the East Vineyard Road near the intersection of Crystal Creek Drive in the Vineyard Road and Vineyard Road in the Vineyard Community, and the environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration.

Thank you very much.

It looks like we have staff presenting.

Good afternoon, sorry.

Sorry to interrupt um Mr.

Albert's uh chair.

I'd have to uh respectfully refuse myself for this item.

My better half is now the chair of South Cape Parks and Rec District, so at the abundance of caution, I'll be stepping away from this item.

Thank you so much.

So can't hear you.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Christopher Alberts.

I am an associate planner here in Sacramento County at Planning Environmental Review and the lead planner for the ATT Laguna Creek Trailhead Wireless Communication Facility.

The project site is located within the Vineyard Community near the intersection of Crystal Creek Drive and Vineyard Road.

Existing development on site consists of recreational amenities such as trails and picnic tables.

The project site would be located within the Laguna Creek Parkway, which is an open space designation in the county, and surrounding land uses include existing residences.

The entitlements being requested today are a conditional use permit to allow for a wireless communication facility, a special development permit to deviate from the maximum allowable height of 55 feet to the proposed 80 feet.

Lastly, a design review.

The lease area would be approximately 306 feet east from Vineyard Road.

This is similar to the previous slide, except it shows more of the general location of where the exist or where the proposed tower would be here on more on the south side of the enclosure and the associated equipment right next to it, right here.

This slide is showing the elevations for the proposed 80-foot tower.

There are a few components on this tower that I would like to walk through, starting with the top.

First would be the antennas, they would be consolidated within the water tank themselves.

Therefore, they would not be visible from the public.

Going down, you see this design right here.

This is a band that was proposed by the Wilton Rancheria band of Miwok Indians during tribal consultation.

And just right below that, at 62 feet is where future proposed co-location could occur for different wireless providers.

Moving down to the equipment shelter, you can see that the equipment would be on a four-foot steel platform.

Due to the project being located within the flood zone, and at the bottom of the enclosure, you would see there are 36 square square inch holes that would allow for drainage to flow through.

Moving on, I am going to show you different photo simulations from various uh from various areas surrounding the project site.

First being northeast from across the intersection of Vineyard Road at West Savannah Drive.

Next is east from Crystal Creek Drive across from Vineyard Road.

Here we're looking south from Clover Ranch Drive at Saddle Creek Drive.

This would be the nearest point along Saddle Creek Drive to the site.

And lastly, this is looking north to northwest from the Drenish Drive just east of Savona Drive.

On the screen is the existing coverage map provided by the applicant team within the blue circle, which is the area impact.

You will see that there is more on-street coverage compared to indoor coverage.

You will also see that there are areas where no coverage is being provided, and that is mainly on the eastern portion of the area impact.

The proposed 80-foot tower would provide greater indoor coverage compared to outdoor coverage as seen on the previous slide.

The project underwent environmental review, and based on the findings from the initial study and mitigated negative declaration was prepared.

And due to the project how we lessen a significant impact with mitigation, a notice of attempt to adopt the mitigated negative declaration was released on July 3rd of 2025 for a 30-day public review period.

During this public review period, we did receive one comment from an agency, which was the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Their comment was a standard comment outlining the permitting requirements for their process, and staff did provide response to that comment.

I would also add that the project did receive six additional public comments in opposition to the pro uh and in opposition to the project, which did not highlight any concerns with the environmental document itself.

But staff did provide responses to those comments.

The project was presented to the design review advisory committee on November 14th of 2024, which recommended the planning commission find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines.

The project was also presented to the Vineyard Community Planning Advisory Council on February 13th of 2025, which recommended approval from the Planning Commission.

There were two members from the public who attended this meeting who were in general support of the project, but they did provide or suggest some revisions.

One being to redesign the tower as a palm tree, and the other being to keep that maximum allowed height at 55 for the tower.

To summarize, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit, special development permit, and design review.

The project is found consistent with general plan and comprehensive plan policies and was supported both by the design review advisory committee and vineyard community planning advisory council.

Lastly, there were no significant environmental concerns identified during analysis of the project.

Before staff provides a recommendation, I want to present additional analysis related to the special development permit request to allow the 80 80-foot tower where the maximum allowed height is 55 feet.

Here you can see the coverage differences between the 55-foot tower and 80-foot tower.

Also note that unlike earlier exhibits that provided the coverage combined with the surrounding towers, these show standalone coverage without any assistance from nearby towers.

Determine that the environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is adequate and complete.

Adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approve the conditional use permit subject to findings and conditions, approve the special development permit subject to findings and conditions, and find the project in substantial compliance with design review guidelines subject to findings and conditions.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

No, all right.

Thank you very much.

And we'll now turn it over for the applicant.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Mark Lobaugh.

I'm with uh Epic Wireless here representing ATT on this matter.

Um, this area is experienced the area that the uh project's uh located is experiencing uh great deal of growth, explosive growth, and uh ATT is trying to get in front of that uh by improving communications for um businesses, first responders, residents, and the like.

Uh, this tower will go a long way to improving communications for folks out there.

Um, we've entered into a lease and we've got a signed agreement with the uh park district, uh, fully executed agreement, and they're standing by uh waiting to see if this project gets approved.

Um the design of it uh was a result of their request, uh park district requested specifically requested that we do a you know this this water tank design.

Um they actually approved the colors, the design, everything about it.

We looked at various alternatives and we felt that perhaps this water tank was the best alternative rather than a tree in this particular location.

Uh, that being said, I'd love to answer any questions you have and um make myself available.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

No.

All right, thank you very much.

And we'll now open it up to any public comments.

Any member of the public wish to comment on this item?

We have not received any speaker cards.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh then we'll kick it back to the uh the dais.

I'll make the motion to move the project as with the recommendations of staff.

We have a motion.

Second.

All right, we have a second.

And with those members present, that does pass for.

Wonderful, thank you very much.

And do we have a way of reaching Commissioner Borjas to have him return?

Chicken sandwich.

Okay.

All right.

We'll move on to agenda item.

Oh, here we are.

There we go.

And then we'll move on to agenda item three.

Clerk.

And agenda item number three is PLMP 2024-00226.

Uh, this is a zoning ordinance amendment and the county code amendment, um, and this is a workshop item to the planning commission.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh good.

My name is Yang Choi, associate planner with planning and environmental review, uh, and I'm the lead planner for this item.

Um, it is a workshop item today to receive the feedback from uh your commission and the public today.

Uh so our workshop overview today.

Um I'll be going over some of the quick background and the workship requests.

Um, I'll um also go over our existing crowing foul zoning code as well as a proposed zoning code and provide you with the next steps.

So this is a workshop item to receive a feedback from um our planning commission and the public regarding the amendment to the crowing foul.

Um our staff has been receiving increasing number of concerns related to roosters, and staff has been coordinating with various agencies within um our county, including code enforcement, sheriff, animal care services, and agriculture advisor committee.

Uh through the stakeholder meetings and public outreach, it was consistently identified roosters as the most problematic species in terms of noise, nuisance, and their associated with um and their association with illegal activities such as cockfighting.

And as a result, the county is prioritizing targeted regulations that address roosters rather than the broadly regulating all crowing fowl.

As mentioned earlier, and unfortunately, our community has been also impacted by these illegal activities.

As recently as of last year, uh lie enforcement sees over 200 birds in connection with the cockfighting operation.

Cockfighting is a federally um prohibited under animal welfare act, and it is frequently associated with other unlawful activities such as illegal gambling and narcotics.

So, to today, Steph uh staff is here to receive feedback and comments on the zoning code uh zoning ordinance amendment to amend chapter three and chapter seven of the Sacramento County Zoning Code that pertains to keeping of crowing file.

Um, and while the county code uh sorry, while the county code updates are not subject to the planning commission review uh due to the coordinated effort with our animal care services, we are also providing information on the county coat amendment to Title 8 of the Sacramento County Code uh to add provisions to address keeping of roosters.

Uh so to go over our current regulation for crowing foul.

Um, so our crowing foul is uh currently defined as any rooster, peacock, goose, quaking dog, or guinea fowl.

Um, as mentioned earlier, uh we wanted to do more targeted regulation.

Um, so it was determined that the rooster would be uh what would be amending the most.

At this time, uh Sacramento County allows coring foul on lots over 10,000 feet square feet.

There is currently no limitation of number of files that they could keep as long as their parcel is over 10,000 square feet and is within the parcel that's allowed.

It just kind of lists how other counties and other cities are restricting the roosters.

I'll be just skipping these, but we will definitely come back if you have any questions regarding the regulations of other jurisdiction.

So I'll be going over some of the proposed amendment that the county staff is proposing.

So first, the county staff is amending section 393 G, which pertains to the incidental agricultural accessory structures uses andor keeping of animals.

On this section, what the staff is doing is to clarify that what we're amending today is really incidental use and keeping of animals, and it does not impact our commercial agricultural activities, such as our poultry farmers.

In addition, staff is proposing three months a time period to either comply with the current uh the proposed ordinance or to obtain certificate of non-conforming use.

So, for example, if you are currently a legitimate poultry breeder who either breeds roosters for conservation of the species or breeding roosters for lawful exhibition, they can receive a certificate of nonconforming use to continue their hobby.

So this next section is uh subsection uh one, which pertains to general standards.

I know that we see a lot of red lines, but I wanted to clarify that none of these are new requirements so as currently today stands, um, this section just refers back to a separate section 346C.

And what staff has done was we just went back to what section that was referring and copy and pasted into this uh section.

Um we did this to make sure that people are clear that the standards do apply to all incidental keeping of animals.

Um again, this is not a new requirement, but a copy of an existing requirement from a different section.

Next, um, staff is proposing to amend the lot sizes and limitation of number of roosters.

Staff is increasing the minimum lot size to rooster to 14,520 square feet from 10,000 square feet, so 14,520 is a third of an acre per rooster.

Um, and in agriculture zones, including agriculture residential zones, they could have up to five roosters permitted on that property.

And in residential zones, staff is proposing a uh temporary use permit to have up to two roosters on that property.

County does recognize the important role that our agricultural education program play in our youth development and responsible animal stewardship.

We remain committed to supporting these programs such as 4-H and Future Farmers America.

And under the proposed amendment, uh education program would no longer be required to obtain a minor use permit.

Um, as currently today, those programs, if they do want to have those animals, they do require a minor use permit on today's proposal.

Um but um because they're doing um something that we'd support, we would like to get rid of that requirement.

However, for legitimate poultry hobbyist breeder or any participants in a law for rooster exhibitions, staff is proposing a minor use permit.

However, through our CPAC outreach, we have heard of many concerns that the cost of minor use permit may be burdensome.

And in response, staff is open to explore alternate options, such as reducing the minor use permit to a temporary use permit and such.

And we do have this item as part of the feedback that we would like to receive in the future slide.

Second, we are also um changing the enforcement section.

Um, on this.

As of currently today, our planning director is only allowed to enforce on egg-laying hens and ducks.

And what we would like to do is so that our planning director may and do have a power to uh regulate this entire section if needed to be.

So if a rooster is over six months old and has a full plumage, and if it's capable of crowing, then we would determine that would be a rooster.

In addition, we would limit the tethering of roosters, as well as we would also provide operations, minimal operation standards such as providing access to water, shelter, sufficient room, and clean and sanitary premises.

Lastly, um the violator of Title VII may be subject to civil penalties, referral to district attorney, and county council may seek legal and equitable relief if needed to.

And we do have a net um director of animal care services here to answer any of your questions regarding uh county code as well.

So, with that being said, um we do have a very short list of feedback and comments that we would like to hear from the public and the planning commission, but these are not limited.

Uh, we're definitely open to any other comments and feedback as well.

So this does end my presentation.

Staff is here to answer any questions that your commission may have.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

I I have a just a couple.

Um I see that the at least in the analysis, um, that the intent um of this amendment is to eliminate illegal uh fighting within the rooster or within uh rooster ownerships and um but these activities are already illegal, and so I'm curious um how many um incidences that law enforcement has been called to uh that has uh responded to these types of um um uh illegal alleged illegal activity.

I don't have an exact number of um how many incidents that they were referred to, um, but I will say that currently as it stands, uh the only way that the law enforcement um could respond is when the cock fighting happens.

Even if we see uh um a rooster that's clearly being grown for cockfighting, there's nothing that the county can do under the current code or under the current zoning code.

So what we're trying to do is try to get ahead, so before the fight happens, hopefully we could take uh some of the roosters away from um going to the fight.

So that's another intent of the zoning code.

And are there not already ordinances that exist for general welfare and health of livestock and animals?

Yeah, we also have animal care services from a net that could answer to the county code that relates to welfare of the animals.

Okay.

My name is Annette Bedroom, I'm a director for animal care services, and really what our current ordinance is it's brand new under Title VII, and what we're trying to do is eliminate the I'm here for the humane side of the roosters, and we're trying to eliminate the raising of roosters for cockfighting.

And it's very clear, because right now it's currently not illegal, but when you're driving by large farms, and we do have some here that are raising them for cockfighting because they're tethered, and that's inhumane for one, and you only tether roosters because you're training them to be cockfighting roosters, or you have them tied to little huts, that's another uh example.

So we're just trying to put the humane aspect of it and eliminate uh the tethering of roosters.

And then um back to the temporary and minor use permits.

Is there a fee schedule that you're able to provide?

Um I don't have the exact number, but um are you uh asking what the potential cost of those permits?

So the temporary use permit is around 290 dollars, and again, this is an approximate number, and the minor use permit is about $1,300.

I do want to note that for the minor use permit, those run with the land.

Okay, all right, thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Yep.

Thank you for bringing this in your presentation.

I'm curious if you can speak a little bit to the civil penal or the civil penalties and the misdemeanor.

Um so if someone is has more six roosters, are they subject to a misdemeanor and the civil penalties, even if they're not if there's no evidence that they're they have these for cockfighting purposes, or can you clarify?

Do you have any real code for the civil penalty?

I don't have the civil penalties, but we're not gonna um offer a misdemeanor if not based upon numbers from animal services perspective.

Ours is completely the humane side of things.

So we would only enforce with usually misdemeanor or felony charges in the DA's office if they're you being in humane to these roosters, and that's where we get into the cockfighting.

I don't have the zoning code in front of me or the county code for code enforcement's fines, but what they typically do is they start off with a courtesy notice or courtesy inspection um for not just this topic, but pretty much for any potential um violation of the zoning code, they will go out when they've received a complaint, see what's going on, talk to the person about what the zoning code requirements are, and then if they are not able to get compliance, that's when they start writing official notices of violations, fines can occur, penalties um at that point.

I do not recall what those are um per per day or incident, um, and then, of course, there's appeal period appeal processes for for those fines as well.

Okay.

Then I think maybe that could be something that could be clarified in here.

Because when I initially read it, it does say that someone who violates this chapter, which talks about everything that was in the presentation, is liable for civil penalties and may be charged by the district attorney with the misdemeanor.

So maybe just something to clarify.

Because I don't know that we would want to do that for someone that has, you know, six roosters, maybe they didn't know.

And on that point also, the three months seems to me short.

I don't know how much feedback you've received in terms of this proposal.

If there's been much engagement, but I imagine the three is it.

So is it three months from when it gets adopted, I assume?

Yeah, okay.

Correct.

That's typically how we do it.

In this case, we are discussing that with both animal care and the egg commissioner's office because for the most part when we have an ordinance change, we're able to notify folks, typically businesses through the business licensing provisions.

Most of our agricultural operations and hobbyists are not subject to a business license.

So we're looking at whether or not that criteria, if it if it would be the effective data, the ordinance or some other provision so that we can make sure that folks have been adequately notified.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah.

I guess I would just urge looking at the three months, it seems like a short period of time, especially for some individuals that may not know that this is being proposed, and that these notices or information also be made in languages for others to understand and the requirements.

And then you mentioned the a certificate of non-conforming use for those that have roosters for hobbies.

How much is how much is a permit?

So much is that, or what's the process?

It's not limited to hobbyists, as just anyone that's currently keeping roosters in good condition.

Um so as long as they're not violating the potential county code, they would be able to uh able to apply for certificate of non-conforming.

Wendy may be able to answer question on the fee schedule for the certificate non-conforming for these type of permits.

The certificate and nonconforming use certificate is typically around the same amount as a minor use permit.

The board has in some other instances waived that fee for a limited period of time for folks that voluntarily come in to get those certificates.

Um it would also depend on, as young mentioned.

Um, we can't issue a certificate of nonconforming use for a violation of county code or any state or federal law.

So it is still likely that in some instances, some folks may not be able to get a certificate of nonconforming use depending on how they're operating, or if it's just felt that the overall care or number that they're asking, asking for is is deemed um to be creating a public health concern because there's still findings that have to be made for the certificate of nonconforming use.

Okay, thank you.

And then I'm sorry, did you say why five roosters?

I'm sorry, up to five, why?

Um for the agriculture one.

So the number um we've looked at a lot of jurisdictions nearby um jurisdiction for the county jurisdictions first.

Um we saw most of that lot of um jurisdiction does limit have either from two to five, some other um some have um based on the partial size as well.

So for San Rocking County, if you have, I believe from third acre, you could have one, and if you had bigger, then you could have two or three.

That seemed to be the most common and consistent throughout the California counties.

Um, and I do want to mention that we have also looked at some of the city jurisdiction because we do have some communities where with a lot of single family housings, um, and a lot of times we found that uh a lot of cities just do not allow roosters.

Okay, okay.

And I don't know five if that's a lot, or I don't know anything about this, but maybe going back to the humane piece, if there's a tie to that, the humane piece versus you know, this is what other counties and cities and jurisdictions are doing.

Yeah, I don't know, I'd be interested in that.

If you have that later, that's fine too.

Right.

Again, this is for incidental keeping of animals.

Um does not pertain to any commercial operators.

So it would be for someone who owns a home, live there, and they would like to have backyard, and that we would be limiting.

Again, the limitation would only be roosters.

They could have how many number of egg laying hens.

Um, and we also found that uh a lot of egg-laying hands do not require a lot of roosters to live.

The the proportions are from like 10 to 1 or 15 to 1.

So uh we believe the five is um and actually providing options um is flexibility to have these options is um better for a resident than not allowing um having a strict number compared to other jurisdictions that have just um no way to have certain amount of roosters.

Okay, just follow up.

Oh, go ahead.

Go ahead, sir.

Um, just to for my own clarification, uh the permits are for anybody intending to keep or keeping a rooster, correct?

Not just those that would exceed the number five or whatever.

So if you're an agriculture zone and you have meet the minimum lot size, you could have up to five without any permit.

Um, if you are in RD one through RD 10, which is a single family zone, you would need a temporary use permit up to two roosters.

Thank you.

Thank you for the staff, and and thank you, Director Betsford, for uh lending us your time this evening.

Big fan of the Bradshaw Animal Shelter.

I was just curious to see if for example now you you or your team are or any folks in the law enforcement community do see that there's uh a number of roosters that would need to be confiscated.

Um do these roosters go to the shelter or what what happens to the live animals?

It depends on the situation.

Okay.

Let's say that there's like 20 or 30 of them.

Is the shelter able to handle that many birds all at one time?

At the very most.

At the very most.

At the very most.

It really depends on the situation.

Um, a lot of times we've we can take 10 to 20, but not long-term, right?

Because we're not built for uh housing roosters in our facility.

But there's also been times where given the situation, we've confiscated the roosters on site.

That's not the ideal situation, but if we lack the space, we can do that also.

Understood.

Um, and for the uh for the planning staff, have we had a just a napkin math of how many potential roosters might end up being confiscated if this goes to this direction?

And have we looked at whether or not there's capacity for both our law enforcement and our animal care services to handle such a potential load of forkload?

Um, I'll have a principal planner Wendy answer that question for you.

So in stakeholder meetings with um animal care and code enforcement, code enforcement will not confiscate on site.

What they will do is they will work with the property owner to get into compliance.

So this kind of get also gets back to the three months to get into compliance.

So let's say someone has 40 birds, and we say they can only have the five.

If they start to show okay, when we when the inspector comes back in a month, you've gotten rid of five, and yet they're showing progress towards it, code enforcement will continue to work with with them.

It's typically only in those situations where other activities are occurring that involve the sheriff's department and animal care services where they will confiscate on on site.

But for the most part, they will work with the property owner and allow them to find ways to rehome.

Um, if they're meat birds, do do do different things that they they need to do to reduce the population.

Okay, thank you.

Just some really not familiar about this topic, but I love learning about it.

Um, so right now our law enforcement community is able to at least penalize or take folks into some sort of judicial action if they are to caught if they were caught fighting or at least having that illegal activity.

Is that correct?

If they're caught, yes.

If they're caught, and if there's okay.

One other thing that I was curious about, there's a couple of bills that unfortunately did not move in the assembly.

AB928 by Mr.

Rogers and 2964 by Member Hart.

Um there must have been a reason as to why that did not sail through the assembly.

Is that something that your team might have looked at already?

I mean, that is uh kind of a statewide bill, kind of looking at just a maximum amount of numbers and having a very high civil penalty that that that could have other progressions.

Um I wonder what was your feedback on that.

Yeah, staff uh looked into the AB uh 928 as that you mentioned.

Um actually um that bill was where we got the number third acre from.

Um I do want to note that that bill also took consideration of San Joaquin County as well as Santa Barbara County.

So that bill already considered a lot of county regulation to put that forward.

Um I don't have exact reason why it wasn't able to move forward.

Um, however, um some of those elements that um that was there were uh we did take a look as a reference.

Uh we did hear from some of the stakeholders that perhaps their language wasn't um clear enough for a lot of the hobbyists because it just has very generic language.

However, that is something that we heard from the public, and I can't exactly comment on that uh bill as well.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um then uh curious uh district five, as a lot of our are folks from the Southeast Asian community, mom community in particular, a lot of Asian communities who hold some of these animals in high and religious regard.

What is what is your uh feedback into you know considering those perspectives and making sure that we have an equitable way we don't you know push certain cultures behind by having kind of a definitely that is something that we had considered from the beginning of the regulation?

Um, and instead of having a strict number on the residential portion, um that is the reason why we actually have a temporary use permit to provide a flexibility for any of our resident in residential district to keep roosters.

The intent of um having the temporary use permit is not to really limit people from having roosters, but make sure that we have documentation that they will keep the roosters in sanitary conditions, and if the future problem does arise, which we we hope it doesn't, that we do have revocation process in place so that we can remove the bird if that property becomes a nuisance or problem.

So that's the intent of why we are probably providing somewhat flexibility uh for our residential um property owners.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um, what if they were to ask um if there's a religious exemption?

Is that something that you would want to take a look at?

That is something that we could take a look at as part of our temporary use permit process, um, if anything.

Um we will take consideration of um their belief or whatever they need, um, but we will also take consideration of their surrounding location, their lot size, and the area of uh where they do want to keep the roosters.

The number one thing that we want to do is make sure the roosters are keep in a humane way.

Understood.

I'll pause for now, Chair.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, just one last question.

Um I see that the analysis staff's proposing to eliminate the use permit requirement for educational programs.

Wonder if you can maybe expand.

Is this uh intended for like 4H or other types of um programs that would um uh that the raising of the of the roosters would be you know part of that and and just kind of explain what that would all look like and what would qualify as an educational program?

Yeah, right now um I've only listed FFA and 4-H, I think they're the most probably the biggest one, um, but uh we are going to rely on our agriculture commission to really see if it's related to agriculture activity or not.

Um, they will help us determine whether it is legitimately agriculture purpose or you know not, um, and that would um help us uh see if they do need a permit or if they're okay to keep raising uh roosters and other animals uh without a permit.

So if someone shows their roosters, uh state fair, county fair, things of that nature, would that possibly qualify?

So at this time we are um lumping them into the uh hobbyist breeder and uh legitimate exhibitor with a minor use permit at this time.

Um however, as staff mentioned, uh we would like to um look into the minor use permitting requirement, potentially downgrading those to temporary use permit from the feedback that we have received.

Yeah, okay, thank you very much.

Yeah.

Sorry, just have one last question.

Um, just for the members of public, where where might we be able to find information on how many citations or issues or um illegal cock fighting rings or something to extent that that that this has been a problem in the last, let's say two to three fiscal years?

Um I think the sheriff department would be the best resource for illegal activities uh such as cock fighting, um, and we could also reach out to code enforcement for just general overpopulation of uh roosters or nuisance related to uh uh roosters.

Um I'm sorry that I did not have that information prepared for you today.

I understand thank you.

If if I may expand on that one a little bit.

Um typically while we get complaints for roosters, um if the property is over 10,000 square feet in size, our code enforcement office will not um act on that complaint because the way our our zoning code is written right now is that there is no limitation if you have 10,000 square feet or greater, so a little bit less than a quarter of an acre lot, you could have a couple hundred birds, and there's no restriction right now.

Same with animal care, even if they're not being provided with shelter, water, being tethered, we we don't have an ordinance to prevent that from happening.

Just to add a little bit, as currently written, um our planning director is also unable to um cite or revoke um what they do if it's related to roosters, because the current ordinance only limits our planning director to enforce on egg laying hen and duck.

So that's another piece that um does not let us enforce on uh growing fowl and roosters today.

Mr.

Chairman, yep.

Have you had much feedback from the uh real in the community at all?

Uh realtor communities or realinda.

Real Linda communities.

Uh we've received few um comments, but not from the community um CPEC members themselves.

Uh are you what you're just describing is what real Linda was for about 40 years, and if you go out there right now, you're gonna find a lot of areas that will be impacted by your code changes, the 10,000 square feet.

There's significant numbers of people out there that have the older plots that were about 10,000, a little bit more than that, who to this day, because I drive by there on a regular basis, would be significantly impacted by this ordinance.

Um I mean I street, uh 14th Avenue, go in around those areas down there, and you're gonna find out that that has a pretty big impact on.

I don't know if we know the history of this area, but real Linda was a large agricultural egg-producing area, and most of those properties out there are still egg um zoned at five and ten acres.

So does if there's agg zoned as in that area and they have chickens and roosters, will this change affect them?

Because you're talking about RD 10, RD1, it you didn't say anything about agricultural zoned areas.

They're not any more what you would call commercial farms, like they used to be.

Um they're more cut up areas that are basically people who have their own little chicken farm, so to speak.

And you know, I see a bunch of heads nodding out there in the in the property there.

That if this results are has an impact on the ag zoning that they're in, it will have an impact on them significantly.

That's why I was curious if you got much feedback from that community, because you know it's literally only about 15 miles down the road here where it's at.

And it's quite large for those of you who know real Linda.

So is you might want to try to if it uh if it impacts the ag designation of that property room out there, we might need to have some kind of further investigation into whether it impacts them or not.

I can think of four places that I've drove by in the last three days that this would impact.

So, and when you're talking about permits, use permits, use permits cost, and you just talked anywhere from 130 to 1,300.

So you're talking about families out there who would be have to pay if this impacts them, have to pay those permits, and you know, depending on what kind of permit it is, it could go, was it what to three years?

And then after that, you have the minor use permit, the there's just a bunch as you just elaborated, and I don't know what the time frames are, but those are generational homes out there who've had those things for decades, and you know, I'd hate to be someone out there every three years having to put $1,300 out to keep their their chickens in their roosters.

Um like I said, I don't know how much uh information you got from them, but maybe you can reach out to that group or that area or think about that if it impacts the ag designation.

Maybe that if it doesn't, then maybe it's not that big of an issue.

I wanted to clarify that so um so ag zoning uh would be limited to five roosters um with limitation of third acre per rooster.

With that being said, uh, as I mentioned, we are um there is a certificate of non-confirming use, um, and the board of director, board of supervisors may waive the fees for those.

Um, in terms of the permitting cost, if it's a minor use permit, it'll be $1,300 for rest of the life uh running with the land.

If it's a temporary use permit, it would be first three years, the first uh the first three uh the very initial three years will be around 289, 290, and every subsequent three years will be 60 percent of um around 290.

So um it's not $1,300 every three years or anything like that.

So I wanted to kind of clarify that for you.

Um, in terms of outreach to realinda community, we'll definitely keep in mind and provide additional outreach to Real Linda and um just generally our agricultural communities in the county.

If I'm reading the crowd the crowd well, you're gonna be talking to them in a few minutes, so one quick absolutely.

Do we have do we have any ideas to the the number of persons either keeping roosters or wanting to keep roosters on lots that are smaller than one acre?

Like, is that half of the people that keep roosters currently, or is that a small sliver?

Do we have any?

It really depends, and I think Wendy could speak to more.

Um, I think the the biggest problem that we're having regardless of the lot size is the really a concentrated number of roosters in uh an area, whether it's a five acres or ten acres, um having 200 roosters in one site is just uh too many, is what we find.

Um, as currently written, we are requiring third acre per roosters.

Um again, that is open for discussion, and we are open to get receiv feedback as well.

Wendy, did you have anything else to add to that?

Thank you.

Yes, um, just a Todd Smith planning director, wanted to respond to a couple of points.

Uh first, Commissioner Verga.

Excuse me.

Um, we didn't cover this in great detail at the beginning of the presentation, but we did uh Wendy and Young and others have done this uh outreach to all offered the outreach to all 14 or 15 now of the community planning advisory councils, including Rhea Linda.

Realinda CPAC did not take us up on the offer of a presentation.

For whatever reason, we don't know.

We have the next the last CPAC presentation happening on Wednesday this week, which I think is Carmichael.

Yes.

So there's ongoing outreach, all that to say.

And then I'm gonna go back to Chair Conklin, your question regarding um educational aspect, I think is what was in your head as it relates to perhaps showing uh certain roosters at the state fair, county fair, etc.

Is it correct to uh describe your question more along the lines of through showing roosters at an exhibition like that that could be educational to those visitors of the fair or fairs or something along those lines?

Exactly.

Okay, thank you for clarifying my own comment.

I needed it.

Yeah, sorry about that.

If so if the showing is related, so so uh, like you know, FFA for H, one of the things the reason why they used to show the birds at the so if it's educational, we also um there are also hobbyists um that breed for conservation, um and we do uh note that they do have higher number of um roosters because they need to conserve the species and they need to replicate, so um, that's how you put them into separate categories versus education and hobbyist breeders.

Okay.

Well, I know uh all of us have probably um several other questions, but I know we have a lot of folks in the public that would like to provide some comments.

So I want to give them an opportunity.

Um, so yeah, we'll we'll uh thank you very much for the presentation.

I appreciate that.

And then uh we'll now open it up for public comment.

Um I believe we have about a half dozen or so.

If you haven't uh if you'd like to speak and you haven't uh filled out a card, please go in the back and fill out a card so we can get a record of it.

Um we're gonna go in.

Um, I guess uh we got the list there, we'll go in list order here.

Um, and um we'll proceed with uh Carol Lee.

Good evening.

I wanted to first thank you all for responding to my email that I wrote Sunday uh Saturday night to you when we realized that this was um on the agenda.

Um I live on 10 acres.

My special needs son David Um has raised chickens for 25 years, um, and it's it's a big deal.

It's a big deal.

Um I think I had told you in the email a little bit about some of the breeds that he raises.

This particular breed um has like a 20-ounce hen, um, that the picture that I sent to you, um, she was a reserve champion at uh Pacific Poultry Breeder show um probably 20 years ago.

And this the special thing about those hens is they have to have gold lacing around each feather, and so there's always um kind of a big project trying to get the birds for show birds to uh adhere to a breed standard.

Um the other breed that he breeds is um a Sumantra, they have really long tails.

This one's a gray one, but he has black ones, and the feathers are supposed to have a green sheen to them.

His birds seem to have a little um purple uh sheen to it, but it's supposed to be green, and so we have right now less than 15 roosters.

We we have probably five for each breed, um, is what he needs to keep the genetic pool where he can breed to different hands to try to get these breed characteristics.

And when you look through these standards, um so it's a whole thing that hobbyists do.

Um we're looking at feather quality when we're showing uh mice biting the tips of the feathers will make them show less perfectly.

So we're we're really looking at humane as good as possible conditions that we're raising our birds in our household.

Um we have 18 different pins.

I think I wrote cages, but all of our birds get to hit touch the ground.

Uh some of our cages are four feet by eight feet.

Um the quality of how the birds look, the health of them is very, very important in a showing world.

Um so in the show or show world is significant in California.

I'm gonna ask you to please wrap up.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Our biggest show is um in Lodi, uh can have two to three thousand birds.

Um every breed needs multiple roosters to prevent um genetic um in breeding.

Uh my son gets about 20 dollars per bird when he sells it, and and so uh thirteen hundred dollar or even uh three hundred dollar certificate is gonna be a problem for for him to handle.

So um, but but the hobbyist world is a real thing, and I do believe tethering a bird would not work in a show poultry hobby.

So maybe just tethering might be the thing and not uh a number.

So, understood, thank you very much.

And um I know I allowed an extra minute for the last speaker, so why don't we just for three minutes for each speaker so everybody has equal footing here?

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh I don't have many birds of my own, but I am concerned about this.

What I what I look to me as a citizen is just a very broadly written uh proposal.

Uh Mr.

Choi mentioned um cock fighting, and that was the sole reason that I saw that was given for all of this.

But really, he's and he also said that there was a farm or large farms where uh he you could see, and I'm almost quoting obviously the birds were being bred for cock fighting.

Well, if that's the issue, then why not if there if there's some way to write it?

There should be some way to write an ordinance so those things that are obvious to Mr.

Choi or other people could be part of the ordinance instead of arbitrarily, in my opinion, deciding what size lot is appropriate for people in R1 through R10.

I don't see what about people who can't afford a larger lot.

Do they deserve no birds at all?

And somebody else deserves more because they have a third acre instead of 10,000 feet.

These things don't seem logical to be.

And even though it was illegal, uh there it's a commercial operation, and the the ordinance doesn't apply to them.

So it doesn't look like it's carefully written to me.

And I'm not sure at all that 10,000 feet creates less noise than 14,500 feet square feet.

I see no logic to that.

I also don't see any logical reason that birds would be more humanely treated on a larger lot.

They may or may not be.

So the ordinance ought to address the treatment, not the size of the lot.

If the concern is the treatment.

So, and I also think it's a mistake for counties and uh government entities to simply look at what their neighbors are doing and copy or try to average out what their law is based on that.

That could be a uh just a slippery slope.

Once one county changes back to the normal, then the next one can go to a little bit up and a little bit up and a little bit up.

Those that's not logical.

That's not the way to make law, in my opinion.

Those are the things that I think uh you ought to think about.

All right.

Thank you.

We do have a state law against cockfighting.

And nobody here, I doubt whether anybody would come in here and promote that.

So that isn't the issue at all from my point of view.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening.

Um I have several comments, and I hope to work with you on this, but I I do want to voice a great note of caution for each of you.

There's a lot more work that should go into crafting any kind of ordinance related to roosters specifically and to animal welfare.

I want to begin this with a general idea.

Chickens are an anti-poverty mechanism.

So trying to tell somebody who has a backyard, just a simple backyard, that they should not be able to have a rooster sounds more like a nuisance order than a cruelty order.

Uh chickens make great pets, they make great protectors, they're wonderful for neighborhoods, they build character, they build culture, they are relationship driven.

Um this ordinance is um as as proposed is incredibly broad rather than incredibly narrow.

If the purpose is simply to prevent cruelty, if the purpose is simply to not have tethered birds, which I fully support, if the purpose is to go after criminals who are fighting birds, then focus solely on that.

Do not make a family, a hobbyist, any normal resident.

Try to pay $1,300.

The average American can't afford a hundred dollar extra bill.

So it's a ridiculous idea to say that someone can afford $1,300 to have a pet, not just be a hobbyist, have a pet.

$1,300?

Are you kidding me?

$130, $300, it makes no sense.

And the majority of the neighborhoods that you're talking about, and they're diverse, they're not just Rio Linda, they're Fair Oaks, they're Carmichael, they're Folsom, they're South Sacramento, the entirety.

It makes no sense.

We've been an agricultural county for most of our history, and we face a lot of urbanism, but we should not be subjecting the the rooster to uh a lesser role than a dog.

Truly.

And if it's about a nuisance, then let neighbors work that out between themselves.

Let SPAs drive that within the county in the 65 SPAs that you have.

Encourage different districts to create more.

If that's the goal.

If it's a nuisance issue, focus on that.

If it's a cruelty issue, then keep it extremely narrow to the criminal.

Um I really think that that animal welfare has to speak to the specific character of neighborhoods, and there are great variety of neighborhoods with a great variety of cultures, religious needs, and much more.

I have many more comments, but I will be polite and I will send you with the I will close with the simple idea again.

Chickens are anti-poverty.

Therefore, roosters are anti-poverty.

Keep it to that.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

My name is Mylin, and I live in Fair Oaks Village.

As you know, we have these signs around the village that say we are a Sacramento unincorporated county.

They show pictures of the iconic rooster in front of our famous red bridge.

And our tagline is where the rooster crows.

I run a small rescue for abandoned and unwanted poultry, and we are seeking sanctuary status with the planning commission as we speak.

I have seen firsthand the consequences when people are no longer able to keep or no longer want the roosters.

Right now, our county already struggles with rooster dumping.

In Fair Oaks Village, we regularly find homeless and feral roosters abandoned in unsafe places, parks, neighborhoods, along busy roads, and my own front yard.

In the last two weeks alone, I myself have seen over 20 poultry dumped.

That's more than one per day.

And a majority of which of them are roosters.

People buy hens from the feed store in the spring, but those hens, it's a 50-50 chance.

They're now revealing their true genders.

County code doesn't allow a lot of folks to keep them, so they think the next best thing is to drop them off in Fair Oaks.

I so appreciate that.

And I want to prohibit tethering and Title VII provisions to eliminate cock fighting.

However, if you make these broad sweeping rules more restrictive as proposed, it will not stop the rooter roosters from hatching.

What it will do is increase illegal abandonment.

And that means more suffering animals, more cost to our county, to animal control, to our local shelters, and to rescues and compassionate residents like me.

Instead of punitive restrictions, I encourage you to consider protections and resources for responsible owners, such as education permitting support for rehoming.

Because without that, people like me and rescues like ours who are stepping up to help the county deal with this problem will be unfairly punished.

In short, these updates do not solve the problem of crowing fowl.

They will make it worse by driving more roosters into homelessness.

Please do not adopt a policy that increases animal abandonment and punishes caregivers and community members who are working on our county's behalf.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to share our concerns.

I have had an incident not too long ago where there were two roosters dumped at Turtle Pond at Sailor Bar along the American River.

It took some of us seven hours to be able to rescue those roosters.

So right now I have those roosters in my yard.

Every night I tell them go to bed and they go and they go in their coop and then I feed them and they're such a joy.

If this fortunately, my backyard is over 10,000 square feet.

But if the lot changes, what am I gonna do with these roosters?

What are other people gonna do with the roosters?

Are we going to turn them over to the county, the animal shelter, and not knowing if they'll be able to be rehomed?

Probably not.

So they'll probably be killed.

Is that inhumane treatment?

Is that humane treatment?

No, that's not humane treatment.

What we're about is we're trying to help the roosters to give humane treatment to the roosters and to all animals.

I applaud being able to have stricter regulations on the targeting people that are actually abusing these roosters and chickens in general.

I want to continue to support that, but to make it effective to target the people that are actually doing it, not those of us that are trying to provide humane treatment for the animals.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, I'm glad I came last because I was about to explode with my emotional feelings.

Anyway, I want to introduce myself.

I've actually been um sort of designated the Spheroaks chicken lady for the last 10 years.

My life has been all about feeding the Ferox chickens that have been dumped in the parks incessantly.

I've worked with your predecessor Dave Dickinson and Celeste Ingrid and many in the community in Fair Oaks to not only do I personally rescue them and find them homes, drive them out to Wilton and out to farms.

I have devoted so much time and energy to the rooster that is for some reason the most disliked, I don't know, more so than barking dogs.

I don't know why the rooster has been sort of isolated and picked out as the crime here.

But anyway, long story short, I think that um my efforts to get signage put up in the village have helped a little bit.

Basically, they took a law, which is exactly what you're proposing with the cock fighting, is that cruelty to animals is punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine, and or not $20,000, I don't know.

I I don't have the signage with me, but um we got 10 of those signs put up in the Greater Fair Oaks area and um they've come down, but not my um drive to keep personally keep the roosters safe in the village and keep people from dropping them.

I've personally run after people who've dumped them and made them pick up the chickens and put them back in their vehicle and run them out of our our village.

Um the problem is that if we do a law that's this broad-stroked, it's only gonna hurt people like myself and Mayland and rescues who are helping county deal with the problem of abandonment and mistreated chickens.

The chickens that are dumped in the park in Feroaks Village are mistreated.

Most of them are cock fighting roosters, and they become beautiful pets for loving families when they get rehomed.

So I'm just hopeful that you look at your ordinance carefully and understand that you are probably targeting the wrong community people.

And if you seriously want to have an arrest on a cock fighting ring, that's done very frequently in other counties.

You just need to target the right criminal, not the hobbyists in the community and the rescues and the people like myself who have dedicated their time to the um abandonment of chickens.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Was there any other members of the public that didn't speak that would like to?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Um, I wanna thank um staff for their um their efforts.

Um I know this is um this is uh been a um probably a Herculean effort to dive into, and I I appreciate you establishing and staff providing a baseline looking what other municipalities are doing in this space just so we can get a sense of what levers you know are are able to be pulled um I do agree with um my colleague that there's there's um areas of of Sacramento County that um I think um have for uh have had a long history of agricultural um um uh history of agricultural um um and and and uh they're they're they're I'd say um scope is is uh being adversely impacted by the proposed ordinance and so I I see this um this workshop is very helpful and in the the outreach I I do hear a lot and I I do tend to agree that there might be a you know the it's either we're going after a nuisance or we're trying to um go after cruelty and abandonment and mistreatment of of animals and and um and I I caution and really hope that we can collect some of this feedback um to really kind of hone in uh on on um and put a finer point on on what that might look like so um I know that uh um this is a workshop I know there's an upcoming uh C uh is it Carmichael CPAC meaning yes the the last CPAC uh presentation will be our workshop will be on Wednesday uh Carmichael CPAC that's correct.

Okay.

Um and I I know there's some some hopefully that's an opportunity for for those that didn't get to speak tonight to to attend that.

I think that um I've got some concerns about the fees um and and uh uh would love to to interact with staff on on developing maybe a you know whether it's a you know um something that's de minimis in a renewal capacity um just to eliminate any perceived cost barriers but um I'll kick it off to any other commissioners I know um uh the director Smith would like to to wrap uh provide some final thoughts I think on as well.

Thank you Chair I'd like to volunteer and I appreciate the time and effort um Dr.

Bettsworth um and and director Smith and and Troy for all of the work here you know what I think what in my humble perspective it seems to me that this has been a years long effort and coordination of multiple agencies.

And and I think that that that may or may not be as evident um because what's happening is that there are community members who who feel very strongly that they might be implicated if the target is organized cockfighting rings that is very difficult and are organized and are evasive.

And I think that that is at the heart of this the issue um where I'm having just a very tiny bit of concern and I do understand that there are members of community that are are are taking advantage of our for lack of a better term lack of an ordinance of a cap and in using that to evade and and I think from what I'm hearing is that it's a highly it's a high it's highly lucrative amount that they could potentially be making and taking advantage of this by by cockfighting.

And so I I do not know whether it's triangulating our resources and and and maybe strengthening our law enforcement efforts that's gonna get us there.

Maybe perhaps this is a start that having a cap, but I I would just encourage our team and our staff here to again listen to the members of the community.

Because I think what's happening is that we're we're inadvertently casting a net that is damaging some folks who who might want to legally abide and who are doing where I think rescuing or at least raising these animals humanely and not in a way where they're trying to make business or they're trying to, you know, again, ill engage in illicit behavior.

And so uh as this move forward, I I if I was a member of the public, I'd love to hear what the law enforcement agencies are saying.

Like I'd love to be able to hear and say, hey, as a sheriff's department or as code enforcement, it's really difficult for us to stop this because there's a property with 200 chickens and 200 hens, and this is the prime example, not the community members that we have here who are again trying to raise this in the right way ethically, and and again, are are trying to like uh like a gentleman mentioned, just feed their families, and so uh I'd love to just be able to have that broader base look so it's not just uh more of an administrative approach, and more so hey, this is law enforcement.

We are struggling to have this, it's very hard to triangulate all of these law enforcement efforts that are for this is the barrier, and this is the challenge, and this is the problem that we're trying to uh solve.

And I think that collectively with our community members here, we might be able to find again that fine-tooth comb of just addressing the heart of the issue, but not in infernally damaging certain communities that again are not engaging in illicit behavior.

So respectfully pass my time back to the chair, and and again, thank you.

Um thank you to the team.

I know, and I'm just understanding and realizing that this is a years-long effort now, and I think it will continue to be uh a few more weeks of effort, and and and I do hear the concerns from everywhere from the farm bureau to to the folks that wrote to us here that there's a longer conversation to be had, and and I appreciate the other voices in the room to be present when when hopefully uh we have this uh this table back again to the either to the board of supervisors or to another body that would then decide this.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just have a couple questions in terms of the uh the what this appears to be getting at is the one about the abuse, and two, it's kind of an under understated issue of the noise ordinance or the noise problem.

Um is in terms of the noise issue, is it can I'm asking, can't this be enforced as it would be if it was you had a um an say a dog who was constantly constantly being a problem.

I've known for a fact that there's several people who've gotten the letters from the county about your animals not being you know under control, and especially in in residential areas.

That's my first question is can't this be handled the same way when it becomes a noise new nuisance type thing.

Okay, I'm gonna speak from animal services side.

I'd be happy to speak.

Um I don't get nuisances uh calls on chickens or roosters.

Okay, I get it on dogs, but not chickens and roosters.

I mean, let me a little bit, I would really like to have an opportunity to speak up a little bit and answer some of your questions.

There's a very distinct here what we're doing today has nothing to do with chickens, it's about roosters, and the planning side is addressing the numbers.

Animal services, I have nothing to do with the numbers.

I'm here for the humane side, and we are targeting the illegal activity that's going on.

We work closely with the sheriff's department, they have individual people who are assigned to this task team that we go out with, but unfortunately, right now there are quite a few farms in the Elk Grove area that are tethering roosters by the hundreds.

You can go out there and drive by, and there's nothing illegal about that right now.

What we're trying to do is bring in a humane aspect of it and reduce that and destroy that inhumane activity that's going on when you're tethering roosters either by their neck or by their foot, they're being trained for cock fighting.

That is the whole overall goal from the animal services side.

So basically, from your standpoint, the real issue is dealing with the tethering and giving the ability to go in and address that when you see it.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

So the other half of this, which is limiting the number of roosters in a given area, um, is a different issue that's that drove this.

Can you tell us what the issue was that drove this?

Did you want to go or do you want me to go?

Um so while animal care is not necessarily getting the complaints about noise, our code enforcement officers often get complaints about noise, and we did have some specific properties where they have made many pleas to code enforcement, to the sheriff, and to their board of supervisor about just the number of roosters being kept and the noise from kind of those very large operations.

So put a little bit more color on that.

There's in a couple of locations, there are upwards of 200 roosters on what, five acres, I think, with surrounding agres, you know, uh properties, folks who live there and they hear roosters crowing at all hours of the day, uh day and night.

Well, maybe not night, they're probably sleeping.

Yeah, um my chickens sleep at night.

Uh they also have to those neighbors put up with uh dust that is uh concentrated with um byproducts of the rooster's manure, right?

So you have this this component of the dust, the smell, uh the concentration of urine from the roosters, etc.

So there's there is definitely not just the noise, but the the nuisance aspect of it, um, which is part of what we're trying to address in the zoning code piece of it.

So you've got both sides, you've got the the humane treatment of animals side of it.

You've also got the nuisance and and um kind of the concentration issue that we're trying to address as well.

Having lived in real or in and around real lindo my entire life, I understand what you're saying about the smell and the noise.

Um, is there I guess my just my point would be is there a way to address that issue without having such a broadly written um ordinance because if it's if it's a smaller group of people, then the net is open to catch.

I guess I'm asking is if you can you find a way to reduce that by not putting necessarily a five number on it or something other way to allow you to address those larger areas that both have the nuisance from the noise and the problem with the smell and and the air quality and all that without dropping it so low that you affect other folks.

I guess it's much more that's part of what we're trying to do, and and conversations like this and getting public feedback from all different perspectives, tries what we're trying to do is figure out that solution, that sweet spot.

Um obviously there's no decision here tonight.

We're gathering feedback and um trying to come up with different creative ways to solve for the problem at hand.

And just one other point, and the chairman already made it.

If you're writing the ordinance, you can write the ordinance in a way to either eliminate or um lessen any cost of a permit for someone who's dealing with what the communities talked about versus something else.

I mean, you can carve out a specific type of you can create your own new permit if you want to go that direction where it doesn't have that kind of a financial impact on people if you end up having to do some kind of a permit.

That's correct.

That's what staff presented tonight as an option.

Thank you, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Um, so maybe I can just attempt to like frame this for myself and so we're dealing with um uh animal welfare issues related to tethering and say scale of like the number of birds on site, and then nuisance issues that are related to both the number of birds on site and maybe proximity to other residential homes.

Yes, I would say that is fair.

Okay, okay.

So um I think just in general, I'm not a huge fan of maybe permitting and like regulation.

I think you've definitely understand in support of the tethering, and I think there's definitely some concentration that is some number out there that is logical, and maybe if you want to go above that, maybe then you need the permit.

You know, if you live in an RD 10 and you've got five neighbors ahead of roosters, everybody's hearing those roosters all the time.

And you know, to be honest, I'm not sure, like in those more urban type settings, if really roosters are appropriate.

Chickens, sure, but I I guess I would need maybe some more education to understand why a rooster is really necessary in some of those urban lots.

I think on some of the larger lots for me, um, you know, I could see a number that is appropriate, um, where you could keep them humanely.

Um, and maybe if for whatever hobby reason you need to go beyond five, I use that only because it's been put out there.

Maybe then you'd need a permit, but I guess it's kind of like I think where I'm at kind of globally on it.

Okay.

Any other comments?

May we just see the slide that you were hoping to share, Director Smith.

I think those were your next steps and what what comes after today's meeting.

Sure.

I I had left the previous slide up for context for the questions that we were asking.

Obviously, I think we've gotten a lot of feedback from both the public and the commissioners around these uh six bullet points.

Um I'll leave it up there just a second while I talk longer.

Um I think the next steps uh obviously we talked about the Carmichael CPAC that's happening on Wednesday.

Uh from there, staff will be coordinating internally with with animal care with uh ag commissioner, county council, etc.

to figure out any other uh modifications we need to make to the um draft that's currently in progress.

Um from there, we're gonna be um going out to the ag advisory committee one more time.

Uh we were there when we started this process, uh and we'll also come back to the planning commission uh targeting early November for that for a recommendation from this body on the zoning code amendments.

Uh after that, we will be presenting this um to the board of supervisors targeting the end of the year for that, and then obviously, as with all zoning ordinances, they would be effective 30 days after the final action by the board.

Um so we are obviously in gathering mode right now, uh, whether that's you know constructive criticism, ideas for how to solve for some of these challenges that we've heard about tonight.

Uh, but ultimately we are looking to wrap this up by the end of the year.

I do have the date.

Oh, sorry, it came out longer than I think.

I do have the dates for the egg advisory um committee.

It's on October 8th.

And then we plan on coming back to the planning commission on November 3rd for your recommendation to the board.

So we're on a pretty tight time frame.

Um, but the information that we received tonight from the public is consistent with a lot of the comments that we received at the prior to CPAC, so we're already working on potential amendments.

Okay.

Is that uh conclude the presentation?

It does.

Uh we have no nothing further at this time.

All right.

Well, thank you very much, and I want to thank the public for providing their insights uh on this and hopefully uh be able to attend the upcoming um meetings, uh, keep the conversations going.

Really appreciate it.

With that, we'll move on to our fourth uh item on the agenda, the planning director's report.

All right.

Uh short one tonight.

I want to thank those of you who have sent me your headshots and a little blurbs, your bios.

Just a reminder for those who have not, on what I'm trying to do there is uh gather all of your information, a little bit a little bit about you, a little bit about your professional interests or personal interests if you like, but ultimately what I'm trying to do is freshen up the planning commission web page so that members of the public who are interested in seeing who their district representative is on the planning commission, kind of put a name to a face, that type of thing.

Um I do hope to have that done sooner rather than later.

So uh if you have a few minutes, just send me a headshot and a few sentences about yourself.

That'll be great.

And then um upcoming agenda items, which is kind of bleeding into number five on the agenda.

Um next meeting looks um I'll say relatively light.

Um, we do have a couple of uh housing projects on that agenda, but then October 6th.

Uh, we do have a meety item that is the target date for the Coyote Creek uh agrovoltaic ranch, the big solar project in the East County.

Um, and then the meeting after that on October 20th is looking very full.

So just to put that in your heads as a couple of big meetings to come in October.

And then my only other item to report back on is the I don't remember the name of it exactly, that subdivision map on Sunset Avenue in Fair Oaks a couple meetings ago, last meeting maybe.

Um the Fair Oaks CPAC did authorize uh community-wide interest appeal.

They have filed that appeal.

We just got it late last week, so we'll be scheduling that for the Board of Supervisors.

Outstanding.

Uh Clerk, any miscellaneous scheduling items?

The only item I have on the agenda is or for my agenda will be for Commissioner Deblin and Corona Sabignano.

I will have the assistant clerk here for the next meeting to swear you guys in for your oath.

I believe that we had a few scheduling mishaps so we weren't able to actually uh get those done for you two.

So you will two will be the last ones.

We'll uh go ahead and get you sworn in.

All right, thank you very much.

Um moving on to uh any public comments on non-agenda items.

Not seeing any.

All right, then we will oh, can I just make sure I mentioned at the last meeting, but I will not be here October 6th.

October 6, yes.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Okay, and we will adjourn at 7 07.